Karl wrote:I am sure there is a grain of truth in Rolf Dobelli's essay there, but the most interesting line of that article is at the end: "The Art of Thinking Clearly: Better Thinking, Better Decisions by Rolf Dobelli is published by Sceptre, £9.99. Buy it for £7.99 at guardianbookshop.co.uk". Bear in mind he is trying to sell you his self-help ideology.

Anyway, news being manipulative in general doesn't mean The Mail isn't significantly more vitriolic than The Guardian. Like I said on the last page, when The Guardian goes nuts it's about radical veganism; when The Mail goes nuts it incites bigotry. "They're both nuts sometimes" is a shallow analysis when the rhetoric and consequences are so different.

Karl, I feel that your arguments fall into a black / white type of reasoning when, in my view, there are shades of grey. My detour into that Guardian article was merely to indicate that quite often people are not open to discussion or evidence that doesn't immediately tie in with their thinking; and I wasn't directing that at anyone in particular, more suggesting that we all do it at times.

The Mail does publish some articles that grind and offend: I do not agree with the way they present some stories. But I believe that newspapers the world over do this... it sells papers. Sure, not all papers run stories that lean so far towards the "right" of politics - and, again, I am not saying that I like the way they do so - but I feel sure that not all papers run stories that lean towards the "left" as, say, the Mirror does.

Anyhow, I feel we are perhaps being diverted from the original point I made - that Virgin has made a surprisingly noisy song and dance about electing what papers it will sell to customers. I stick by my view that it would have done better to avoid loudly indicating a political preference that impacts customer choice. I know that it won't sell every paper available, but it felt odd to draw attention to this in the way that it did.

The "stumbling block" who increased her majority by 11,000? Yeah, people must really hate her.

It’s very impressive for a high profile Labour politician to win easily in a staunchly Labour constituency.

How’d Labour do overall?

They achieved the biggest swing since 1945?

And yet were a million votes and 55 seats behind the most incompetent Tory government in living memory?

My parents voted Tory. They are poor, live in a council house, have a son who is a teacher and a daughter-in-law who is a midwife, and so would gain nothing from the Tory manifesto. When I asked why they voted that way the answer was "we didn't know who to pick, so stuck with what we've got". It's just ignorance. People voting against their own interests because they don't follow politics, and what little they do see is filtered through a biased media.

jawafour wrote:Karl, I feel that your arguments fall into a black / white type of reasoning when, in my view, there are shades of grey.

Could you describe the shades of grey you think I'm overlooking? I've seen a tonne of actively hateful Mail headlines - Moggy provided some evidence of this - and the closest equivalent 'in the other direction' seems comparatively harmless to me. I would love to read your thoughts on this in a more detailed form, because it's tough to argue against you when you are being vague about what you think.

Karl wrote:...I've seen a tonne of actively hateful Mail headlines - Moggy provided some evidence of this - and the closest equivalent 'in the other direction' seems comparatively harmless to me...

I'm not denying that the Mail sometimes takes a provocative approach; the Mail editorial undoubtedly creates headlines to get attention and bends stories to suit its political agenda but I feel that most papers do that. They all lean "left" or "right"... some more than others and, yes, the Mail is one that pushes the boundaries to a frustrating degree on occasion.

However, I won't get drawn further on talking about the Mail editorial approach because, as I have said already, that was not the point of my original post i.e. Virgin being surprisingly vocal about what papers they sell to customers.

Karl wrote:...I've seen a tonne of actively hateful Mail headlines - Moggy provided some evidence of this - and the closest equivalent 'in the other direction' seems comparatively harmless to me...

I'm not denying that the Mail sometimes takes a provocative approach; the Mail editorial undoubtedly creates headlines to get attention and bends stories to suit its political agenda but I feel that most papers do that. They all lean "left" or "right"... some more than others and, yes, the Mail is one that pushes the boundaries to a frustrating degree on occasion.

However, I won't get drawn further on talking about the Mail editorial approach because, as I have said already, that was not the point of my original post i.e. Virgin being surprisingly vocal about what papers they sell to customers.

But the consequences of the kind of Daily Mail's kind of political bias have real world consequences that are very negative. It fuels racist attacks, it helps prop up a government for is stripping away funding from disabled people in this country.

The stories that the Guardian and Mirror run while not being entirely accurate don't give racists excuses to attack immigrants.

jawafour wrote:However, I won't get drawn further on talking about the Mail editorial approach because, as I have said already, that was not the point of my original post i.e. Virgin being surprisingly vocal about what papers they sell to customers.

But why shouldn't they be?

'This paper does not align with the values of the company and thus we won't stock it'.

They haven't banned it, they haven't said anyone carrying a copy won't be allowed on their trains - they've just said they won't stock it.

I think it has to be said that The Mail goes further than being "provocative," "bending stories to suit a political agenda," "leaning right," or "pushing boundaries" in a "frustrating" way. It frequently actively incites hatred, which is what sets it and the other far-right tabloids (The Express and The Sun) apart from 'normal' papers. For instance, The Telegraph manages to lean very much rightwards while being day-to-day comparatively less insidious than The Mail. I think the Torygraph is a rag, and I've got angry with it before(!), but to be fair it doesn't regularly shock and frighten and upset me in the way the tabloids do.

If I owned a shop I wouldn't sell the tabloids - and if I owned some other business I wouldn't put ads in the tabloids - because I find them upsetting and offensive. In this scenario I'm not trying to 'ban' them, I just wouldn't support them by having my business engage with their business.

I think there is an argument to be had about the need for a diverse cabinet versus having the best people in the job. I'm not in favour of the Rooney rule that English football is about to adopt for instance, as I think it sends out the wrong message. But that article is one vile way to put it.

myrrh heat than light wrote:I think there is an argument to be had about the need for a diverse cabinet versus having the best people in the job. I'm not in favour of the Rooney rule that English football is about to adopt for instance, as I think it sends out the wrong message. But that article is one vile way to put it.

The Rooney rule isn’t that bad, it just says that you must interview people from an ethnic minority background, not that you have to hire them. The problem (whether real or perceived) is that Black and Asian people are not getting to the interview stage and this is a way to remedy it.

If there was any sort of quota on hiring people based on race, then I would agree.

That DM headline is designed to appeal to the straight, white and middle aged men that get so outraged by this sort of stuff. They will never believe that the women/ethnic minorities promoted in the government did so on merit, oh no it’s a cull on middle aged men!

myrrh heat than light wrote:I think there is an argument to be had about the need for a diverse cabinet versus having the best people in the job. I'm not in favour of the Rooney rule that English football is about to adopt for instance, as I think it sends out the wrong message. But that article is one vile way to put it.

Thankfully, we've got empirical evidence that the white, middle aged men in the cabinet probably aren't the best people for the job.

myrrh heat than light wrote:I think there is an argument to be had about the need for a diverse cabinet versus having the best people in the job. I'm not in favour of the Rooney rule that English football is about to adopt for instance, as I think it sends out the wrong message. But that article is one vile way to put it.

Thankfully, we've got empirical evidence that the white, middle aged men in the cabinet probably aren't the best people for the job.

myrrh heat than light wrote:I think there is an argument to be had about the need for a diverse cabinet versus having the best people in the job. I'm not in favour of the Rooney rule that English football is about to adopt for instance, as I think it sends out the wrong message. But that article is one vile way to put it.

The Rooney rule isn’t that bad, it just says that you must interview people from an ethnic minority background, not that you have to hire them. The problem (whether real or perceived) is that Black and Asian people are not getting to the interview stage and this is a way to remedy it.

I know that, I just don't like the idea that they have to go 'oh so now we've got to give this token black guy an interview', it has the potential to be even more divisive. Education about race at ground level coupled with encouraging more ethnic minorities to apply in the first place would be a preferable alternative.

myrrh heat than light wrote:I think there is an argument to be had about the need for a diverse cabinet versus having the best people in the job. I'm not in favour of the Rooney rule that English football is about to adopt for instance, as I think it sends out the wrong message. But that article is one vile way to put it.

The Rooney rule isn’t that bad, it just says that you must interview people from an ethnic minority background, not that you have to hire them. The problem (whether real or perceived) is that Black and Asian people are not getting to the interview stage and this is a way to remedy it.

I know that, I just don't like the idea that they have to go 'oh so now we've got to give this token black guy an interview', it has the potential to be even more divisive. Education about race at ground level coupled with encouraging more ethnic minorities to apply in the first place would be a preferable alternative.

Why not do both?

I don’t think in football we have much risk of the black person being “token”, there are plenty of black people involved in football. The question has always been, why are so few of those black people getting interviews for management jobs? Why are so few breaking through to become managers?

Education and encouragement is great, but there is a problem there right now if black (and/or Asian) people are not even getting interviews. And just interviewing somebody is hardly divisive, if the one black guy that turns up isn’t any good then he wont get the job.

I think particularly with the England manager job, for example, there isn't a large enough pool of successful BAME managers to really have a meaningful interview, so it really will result in tokenism. In that instance I'd rather see a concerted effort at grass roots level to encourage BAME candidates to take on the coaching qualifications first. Grow the pool and if they still aren't breaking through then it will need the sledge hammer of a Rooney rule.

I don't think the Rooney rule will be particularly harmful, but it does have the potential to paper over the cracks and hide the real issue. Arguably the rule should be extended to women at this point too as the female game has grown massively but the FA is still a male organisation.

How this kind of rule fits into the wider world is anyone's guess. I think most large employers offer automatic interviews to certain minorities anyway.

I agree with you, and obviously I'm in favour of diversity in all careers. I'm just not sure forcing it through is the right thing. It gives fuel to the idea that there's an agenda against those poor white males that the Daily Mail cares so deeply about. How long before we see comments like 'he only got that job because of the Rooney rule'? I like the intention, I just don't like the execution.

myrrh heat than light wrote:I agree with you, and obviously I'm in favour of diversity in all careers. I'm just not sure forcing it through is the right thing. It gives fuel to the idea that there's an agenda against those poor white males that the Daily Mail cares so deeply about. How long before we see comments like 'he only got that job because of the Rooney rule'? I like the intention, I just don't like the execution.

But nobody will get a job because of the Rooney rule. The Rooney rule gets them through the door, it is then up to them and the potential employer as to whether they get a job or not.

The DM and their Nazi commenters can whine all they like, we shouldn't not be changing things just because they will not accept anybody other than middle aged white men.

captain red dog wrote:I think particularly with the England manager job, for example, there isn't a large enough pool of successful BAME managers to really have a meaningful interview, so it really will result in tokenism.

Well that's exactly the point. There aren't enough of them, why and how do we fix it?

You think Gareth Southgate is a more successful manager than Chris Hughton (although he is technically Irish, he manages in England)?

In that instance I'd rather see a concerted effort at grass roots level to encourage BAME candidates to take on the coaching qualifications first. Grow the pool and if they still aren't breaking through then it will need the sledge hammer of a Rooney rule.

How long will that take? "Sorry black folks, but it will be 10 to 20 years before we can even consider you for any top jobs!".

And the Rooney rule is hardly a sledgehammer. Asking clubs to interview just one black person is not forcing anything through, other than getting minorities through the door so that they actually have a chance.